HAIRESIS ("\D,F4H), a choosing, is translated 'sect' throughout the Acts except in 24 : 14; A.V. 'heresy' (R.V., 'sect') ; it properly denotes a predilection either for a particular truth, or for a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage ; hence, a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of 'the truth,' held in toto ; a sect is a division developed and brought to an issue ; the order 'divisions, heresies' (marg.  'parties') in the works of the flesh' in Galatians. 5 : 19-21 is suggestive of this. See HERESY.

[If you consider the English definitions of 'factious' and 'faction' you will find that Wheelhouse fits them perfectly and that he had formed a 'faction', or cult, within the church:

The following are the quoted Scriptures concerning these 'factions' or 'party spirits' :

Galatians. 5 : 20 - 'parties' - such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage: (NASB)  19  Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality (lewdness),  20  idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger (angers), disputes (rivalries), dissensions (divisions), factions (sects from HAIRESIS ("\DXF,4H) and heresies from HAIRESIS ("\D,F4H)),  21  envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  23  gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.  24  Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.  25  If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26  Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

2 Peter 2 : 1, where 'destructive' (R.V.) signifies leading to ruin:  1  But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2  And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3  and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

(b) a sect ; this secondary meaning, resulting from (a), is the dominating significance in the N.T.; Acts 5 : 17 ; 15 : 5 ; 24 : 5, 14 ;  26 : 5 ; 28 : 22 ; 'heresies' in 1 Corinthians. 11 : 19 (see marg.). See SECT.
Acts 5 : 17 ; 15 : 5 (the Sadducees & Pharisees sects); 24 : 5, 14 (Nazarene sect);  26 : 5 (Pharisee sect); 28 : 22 (Christians called a sect);

1 Corinthians. 11 : 18 -  For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19  For there must also be factions (heresies from HAIRESIS ("\DXF,4H) among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.]

David Williams:  If a new Christian acted as Roger Wheelhouse has - we might say he is immature or lacking in sanctification and discipline him - but we would certainly never appoint him as a deacon or elder! In fact if anyone acted like this in a secular working environment we would report that person to the management and the Unions!  We would also repeat the words we shared with the deacons on the 22nd December: 'Only God knows whether more hurt was caused by the letter than would have been caused by leaving the situation to fester - for we personally know of at least four families who were so hurt that they were about to leave.'

52.  Beware deacons who act as leaders - yet cannot even define 'heretic' or 'heresy'!

Roy James (former elder) :  [this opening statement regards the question he wanted to put to the deacons and was, again, badly edited by Calvary Baptist Church!]  That they [the deacons] are saying that, 'Yes, they do believe that there's heresy, but was unintentional'.  Now, that puts a completely different tone on the opening statement from Richard.  And I would like a response - there are other things which I would need to be saying. But that response from them.  Are the deacons saying: 'That there is heresy, but it's unintentional. Or there is no heresy?'  I've got my view on it - and I've shared it with Roger on another occasion.

Richard Lewis: Howard - let Howard respond to that - and other deacons may do so. And if you're going to speak could you come to the microphone.

Howard Bowen: When the letter was put together - the deacons had met with David and Zoë that evening, having met with Roger the night before.  And we stayed here 'til quarter to twelve to try and come to a statement that we felt was reflecting everybody's point of view (which is difficult to do with  8 people).  And we felt - I was asked to put - that the 'deacons did not think that Roger deliberately preached heresy.' The interpretation of heresy means different things to different people and I know that my conception of heresy perhaps is different to others. I know when I'm uncomfortable - if Roger's said something that I don't agree with. And would discuss not only - not only Roger - but with a minister. But the sentence reflects, I think, what the deacons were trying to say. We were mindful that members should have opportunity to respond to the whole letter and we didn't want to block that in any way.  And that is why it was put in that way.

[This was indicative of the definition of heresy that was to be used on this night - everyone was going to come to the microphone and use their own definition.  This is what the cults do - Mormons will come to your door and talk about Jesus and Salvation, and you may think you agree with them - but their Jesus and path of Salvation are not Scriptural definitions, but come out of 'doctrines of demons' 1 Timothy 4:1-3.  By redefining the meaning of words the Mormons can never identify the truth - and this is what Calvary Baptist Church did on this night.  But Howard confirms that Lewis' attempt to hijack the discussion of 'heresy' was bogus!]

Peter Smith : When I first received the letter and read it through very carefully as I said, and I felt that as a diaconate we had to get behind Roger urgently. I believe we let you down, very badly, Roger [addressing Roger Wheelhouse].  I believe we let you, as a church, down, very badly.  And so, as far as in concerned, that was on a Wednesday, and I said, Howard - and I harangued him - something has to be done. Something has to be said. And it came to a point where one man had to stand up [in the next church service - Mike Nelmes] and it was quite embarrassing for him here, at the end of a service to actually ask 'what's going on?' I found that incredibly embarrassing - and so I stand here saying 'from the word go, I support my minister'. I do not believe he is a heretic. And I certainly do not believe that he is doing Satan's work. And I stand firmly here now - and another thing I will say is - because of this letter - is now being discussed, I am seriously considering whether I continue on the diaconate. Because this is not Scriptural.

[muted applause]

[Again, Peter pins all his hopes on Matthew 18:15-17!  We will see later whether he is telling the truth about the way he considers his future on the diaconate]

Derek Evans: Replying first to Peter's last few phrases concerning the lack of action from the deacons. Howard and I met with Roger on the Friday prior to Mike [Nelmes] making the statement on the Sunday - and it was Roger's direct and implicit request that the announcement is not made to members. I personally said to Howard: 'Why can't we make a statement?'  It was said 'people would be mystified and not understand what was going on.'  I said 'Those who received the letter would understand and those who were in ignorance could, unfortunately, remain in ignorance. So the reasons the deacons didn't make a statement that Sunday was that we were directly instructed not to.  Secondly - going back to what Roy asked us - it was the - well, I'll speak for myself - it's not our belief that Roger intentionally preached heresy. The . . . [emotional] . . . the way it is portrayed, or the way he has spoken in sermons sometimes comes out the wrong way, I believe.  It's not the intention to preach heresy, but sometimes it comes out that way, I believe.   Heresy, in my belief, is not the old 16th or 15th century situation with the ducking the witches, or the burning stake, or even the Bishop of Durham type statements. It is a slight misrepresentation and that is my personal view and, I believe, that is what the tone of the deacons' letter was meant  to convey. But, more importantly, this meeting, I believe, is to discuss the other implications of the letter - what you might call a second half.

[The power to make decisions was clearly in the hands of Roger Wheelhouse - as this makes clear.  It is un-Scriptural to have a single pastor/elder holding the reins of a fellowship, for the Body Ministry described in Ephesians 4, Romans 8, and 1 Corinthians 12 makes it clear, by analogy to the human body - TWO hands, TWO feet, etc. that one man should not stand alone.  The dangers are perfectly exemplified by this man!  Derek's definition of heresy is, again, his own - the Bishop of Durham comes closest to describing a real heretic.  But Derek is one of the deacons who had suffered the most abuse at Roger's hands, as he made clear in our meeting with the deacons, yet he never once mentioned it to the whole church.  Again, un-Scriptural. If you don't deal with it directly with the man responsible, how can you mention it elsewhere without being accused of gossip?]

Richard Lewis: David, do you want to - no more deacons wish to make statements?

[Now was not yet the time to speak, as few witnesses had told even a part of the truth of the filth that had been exhibited by Roger Wheelhouse]

Unknown speaker :  My understanding is that this church has quite a long history of power struggles with the deacons of the church. And I would just mention one of the other verses from 1 Corinthians: 'brothers, I could not address you as spiritual, but as worldly - mere infants in Christ.  I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it.  Indeed you are still not ready for it.  You are still worldly.  For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly?  Are you not acting like mere men'.

[Who was this passage of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 addressed to - the whole church?  A typical quotation of a Scripture without the maturity to address it to anything and which subsequently becomes a fence-sitting statement.  There is no 'history' of this church having 'power struggles with the deacons' and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.  If you are coming as a witness bring evidence, not speculation]

Richard Lewis : Roy, do you wish to come back?

53.  Beware excusing heretical behaviour for 'confusion'

Roy James (former elder) : Just to make a brief statement concerning the heresy issue. As I read it, and as I read the chapter and verse as recorded in the letter, as from tape. Reading it, certainly as far as I'm concerned, comes of heresy. What I wrote in the early part of my letter: 'Surely Roger didn't mean this?'  And so I'm qualifying what I'm saying - I am not accusing Roger Wheelhouse of being a heretic. I am saying this: that, at the very worst, that's what it appears to be, in the letter, because anyone who is apparently preaching anything other than salvation by grace and by the blood of Jesus alone, and preaching any other doctrine, by Law, intentionally or unintentionally, is heretical. That is heresy. If I am proclaiming that a man can be saved by works, by obeying the commandments and so on - then that is heresy. So I'm qualifying. I think that, at the very worst, it is that. But I think, at the very best, that he's been mixed up and misguided, and, to some extent, teaching on Law and Grace - confused. That is where I come from in my picture of what's being said in the letter. And, certainly, there have been misleading things concerning that particular topic.  A topic which is very close, in fact, to my heart. The full question of Grace and, even, Utter Grace. And so that's all I want to say concerning that issue. But, heresy? Let's not be putting it into a definition that isn't there.  Hear what heresy is! If anyone doesn't know what heresy is - if the deacons don't know what heresy is - heresy is someone proclaiming anything contrary to the Scripture and, specifically in this issue, contrary to being saved other than by grace. And that's what appears to be being done and that's why I say 'mixed up?' Probably, unintentionally so. But there needs to be probably, hopefully, from Roger, when his statement comes, a response to that concerning 'Yes' or 'No.'

[Roy at least addresses the issue, even if he is foolishly willing to allow that the